Skip to main content

About your Search

20121129
20121207
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
. the democrats line. caller: looking at the we go back -- at the fiscal cliff, we go back to 2001 with the lowering of the tax rates, meant to create jobs. but in the past 10 or 11 years, we have not had any job creation whatsoever. we keep going back and hearing over and over again that it's going to cost jobs. we do not have jobs to begin with. businesses are out to make money. if consumers do not have money to spend, then you can lower their taxes to 0%. they still cannot spend because they do not have any income. guest: i think that is a great point. it brings up one thing we have not mentioned yet. the payroll tax cut is about to expire. if that expires, every paycheck in the country is going to go down about $1,000 on january 1st. that would hurt consumption. it would hurt the customers of businesses. the president has proposed to extend that. i think that is reasonable. we will see a firm public and keep up their opposition or they give in. we have a sleeper here that cannot be ignored. if we do not extend that, every paycheck in the country is going to go down. >> i agree
prepared to go over the fiscal cliff? >> oh, absolutely. again, there's no prospect to an agreement that doesn't involve those rates going up on the top 2% of the wealthiest americans -- remember, it's only 2%. the size of the problem in some sense is so large, it can't be solved without rates going up as part of that. again, i think there's broad recognition of that reality now. >> one fallback option republicans are reportedly considering is to accept tax cuts for the middle class, allow rates to go up for the wealthiest, and then start the fight over again during debt limit talks early next year. yesterday at a business roundtable of ceos, president obama took a hard line, warning his opponents not to consider this strategy. >> if congress in any way suggests that they're going to tie negotiations to dell creting votes and take us to the brink of default once again as part of a budget negotiation, which, by the way, we have never done in our history until we did it last year, i will not play that game. >> well, i wonder, the president's saying, steve, that, you know what, we can
the fiscal cliff. check this out. >> is the administration prepared to go over the fiscal cliff. >> absolutely. we see no prospects for an agreement that doesn't involve those rates going up on the top 2% of the wealthist. remember it's only 2%. >> reporter: most people think a deal will be struck between the president and the speaker of the house, the fact that they are talking and not leaking may be a good sign, jenna. jenna: we'll see. what role has treasury secretary timothy geithner, we just heard from him there, what role has he played in awful all o all of this. >> he's been the public spokesman and delivered the president's plan to capitol hill, which they said was not serious. you had mitch mcconnell try to bring up the geithner-obama plan for a vote. check this out. >> this the president's proposal was made in good faith our friends should be eager to vote for it, so i'm surprised the majority leader just declined the chance for them to support it with their votes. so, i guess we're left to conclude that it couldn't even pass by a bare majority of votes and that they'd
on different aspects of the fiscal cliff. we want to look at capital gains tax and the estate tax. what is the estate tax? guest: it goes back to history -- it was put in place to prevent the united states from developing an aristocracy. a tax on estates that are passed down to heirs. republicans called the death tax. they have characterized it as a bad thing. it has a lot of a populist opposition to it. george w. bush signed in a phase-out of the estate tax. the top rate stays at 55%. the exemption level started rising from $1 million and going up. it was repealed completely in 2010 for one year. then it sprang back to life as part of the extension of the bush tax cuts that president obama signed into law. you have a debate -- very few members dispute that it needs to be continued. the debate is over whether you continue it at the current level. there is an exemption level, $10 million for a couple. or at the white house would prefer a 45% rate. that is the debate right now. there's a split among democrats. the white house wants a less generous estate tax. red-leaning states like max b
fiscal cliff. he says consequences will be far worse than last year's debt ceiling fight, when the u.s. credit rating was downgraded for the first time ever. if a deal is not reached, he told our poppy harlow, the ripple effect will be felt worldwide. >> this single issue has a seismic effect on the rest of the world, that we have never been as connected and the domino effect of a bad outcome here will have significant negative consequences, domestically and around the world. >>> take a minute to come over to your tv, if you can. penn state has another pr problem on its hands this morning. the university's kai omega sorority is being investigated for stereotyping latinos after a picture showed up on the site tumblr. the photo showed sorority members wearing fake mustaches and dressed in somberos while holding signs that say, "i don't cut grass, i smoke it." the president of the chapter has apologized. is that enough, soledad? >> ladies, as your multi-ethnic friend, let me help you. help me help you. no dressing up as any stereotypical figures. just stop. call a friend. get advice. do
of the fiscal cliff discussions and sat down for lunch with former rival mitt romney. >> i am sure they will or have already compared experiences on the campaign trail. >> today president obama hits the road to push for his plan to avoid the fiscal cliff. but republicans have slammed him for campaign-style politics that they say just won't get the job done. rob and sunny, back to you. >> can you really imagine that they're not going to reach some sort of deal to avoid the fiscal cliff? i mean that would be so unpopular across the nation. >> you would -- if you can take an action that would solve the problem for 98% of the country and then come back to the debate about the wealthiest 2%, let's get that first chunk done. republicans fear they could lose leverage if they cave in on the middle-class issue. apparently the president, his team has made increased demand here including, a provision now, part of the negotiations where, the congressional control over the debt limit would go away. and congress does not like to have its power take any way. so maybe the white house, upped the an
the fiscal cliff, which could make it even worse. so we need to do all we can to ensure that our workers and our farmers have access to the 95% of consumers who live outside of our borders. that adds jobs. and when companies consider whether they're going to get into the export business or not which, again, creates opportunity here, they want to know are they going to be treated with certainty, predictability, with fairness in the marketplace. exporters need to know that the country doesn't play by the rules, that country will then face consequences. and those consequences really is what the world trade organization is all about. that's why this discussion is so important, because by today or tomorrow voting to authorize permanent normal trade relations with russia, we then can take advantage of the world trade organization rules as they relate to russia and our trade with them. russia joined the w.t.o. on august 22, and the united states was a big part of that accession we were talking for 18 years with russia to ensure they would go along with certain fair provisions on trade. we need
the road. not that far down the road but get into 2013, get the fiscal cliff thing behind us. why? >> i think tom coburn and the president have slightly different reasons for it. but the problem with just doing tax reform when you don't have the rates going back up is that these deductions and credits that we're going to have to go after to reform, they primarily benefit people at the top. but they also benefit middle-class families. and if you just change those then what you end up doing is raising taxes on middle-class families as well. to get the same amount of revenue. in other words, if you're trying to get a revenue target, let's say $1.6 trillion which is what the president wants. you try to do that just by reforming the code, without the rates. you don't touch the rates. the only way to do it is to get the money out of the middle class. the president doesn't want to do that and most people don't want to do that. but if you let the rates go back up, you're basically halfway to your revenue target and you can
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)